William L. Anderson is an adjunct scholar at the incomparable Ludwig
von Mises Institute and teaches economics at Frostburg State University.
He is also one of the finest columnists to appear on LewRockwell.com.
In a very perceptive essay
about how politicized our culture has become that appeared on the site
before Christmas, he noted that when he moved to Maryland he struck his
first blow against the leviathan by declining to register to vote.

Anderson counseled that perhaps the best way to deprive the steadily
growing government its legitimacy is to drop out of political life altogether,
rather than fight losing battles in a system that seems biased in favor
of bigger government and less individual freedom. Many other critics of
the modern welfare state have begun to reach similar conclusions and not
just anarcho-capitalists. Karl Rove, political guru of the Bush White
House, estimated that of the religious right's white evangelical base,
only 15 million of the estimated 19 million turned out to vote for the
Republican candidate in 2000. Much of the remainder appears to have dropped
out of the process, a development Rove tells insiders he hopes is only
temporary.

It is understandable that many people who differ from the consensus that
favors increased centralization of power in federal hands would find fault
with American politics. A redistributive state must take from some in
order to give to others and impose one-size-fits-all solutions that will
necessarily penalize some as others benefit. One major political party
is dedicated to the proposition that human progress rests on the continued
growth of government while the other favors limited government in speeches
and platforms but fails to achieve it practice, even on the rare occasions
that it seriously tries.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely that those who find these circumstances
distressing will accomplish anything by ceasing their political involvement
besides ceding even more ground to those who believe the solution to all
problems lies in the state. This approach is to shrinking government what
unilateral disarmament is to national defense.

While many anarchists do not vote based on principle, this is not a viable
strategy for conservatives and libertarians. Anderson argued that by refusing
to vote, the state may be able to "take my home, income and even
my family, but they cannot have my encouragement. I will deprive them
of that little victory. Like the Christians who deprived their Roman captors
the satisfaction of renouncing their faith, I will face the Lions rather
than tell the political classes what they want to hear."

Large and overweening as our government is, it doesn't appear that it
is yet involved in feeding Americans to lions, not even Christians. The
larger problem with Anderson's argument is that it assumes that anyone
is going to recognize his decision not to vote as a political statement
on the legitimacy of modern statism. We live in a country where barely
half the American people bother to vote and where many eligible voters
fail to register not out of principled pique but due to apathy. What separates
the non-votes of those who refuse to vote on principle from the much larger
number of votes that were not cast out of ignorance, apathy and sloth?
Neither the political class nor impartial observers will be likely to
know the difference. In fact, students of political science learn that
low turnout in elections means a kind of vague approval of the status
quo.

Massive organized boycotts have had some impact on the legitimacy of
the election victors, if people know who is boycotting and why. Even they
are questionable as strategies however, because whatever their impact
on the legitimacy of the winner, the people boycotting the election usually
end up allowing their opponents to be elected. In the last Haitian presidential
election, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (the subject of US efforts to "restore
democracy" to Haiti during the Clinton administration) sought to
return to power amidst a process international observers decried as highly
irregular and corrupt. Some 75 percent of the electorate boycotted the
election, including major opposition leaders. It was quite a rebuke to
Aristide in international eyes, but the end result was that he still easily
won the election (as it was mainly his supporters voting) and became president.
He is still president at this writing.

In a representative system of government where the people elect officials,
the natural bias of politicians will be in favor of what their constituents
want to hear. (Anderson's Mises Institute colleague Hans-Hermann Hoppe
criticized such systems at some length in his new book, Democracy- The
God That Failed.) Many voters, including businessmen, farmers, pensioners,
college students and their parents and others who are recognizably middle
and upper class, receive a variety of government benefits and would not
like to see them cut. These people vote and often in large numbers - the
voting power of Social Security recipients is legendary- and to expect
people who seek public office to ignore such demands if there are not
voters making contrary demands requires an extremely unlikely denial of
self-interest. There will never be enough people in politics like Ron
Paul who will seek limited government on the basis of principle alone
if there are not voters who demand it.

No matter how many people refuse to vote because they reject big government,
this will do nothing to keep government from getting bigger, taxes from
getting higher and the government from spending more of the people's money.
If these trends seem unmoved by the votes and activism of many conservatives
and libertarians, think how much more likely government would be to grow
in the absence of their participation. Hello, national health care.

Candidates who will stand on principle and work to repeal bad laws, privatize
government assets, cut taxes, rescind regulations and reduce spending
deserve the support of those who favor smaller government. It is difficult
to ascertain why someone did not vote. A vote for a candidate who favors
smaller government or against a candidate that has worked tirelessly for
bigger government is much easier to interpret.

Since not voting will have no practical result other than perhaps to
give more weight to the votes of those who disagree with your beliefs,
the only point that can be made by abstaining is symbolic. Yet a vote
for a candidate may have more tangible symbolism. George W. Bush may not
be shrinking government, but his policies offer the practical benefit
of not growing government as much as Al Gore's would have. But there was
also a symbolic effect of voting for Bush. The cultural and philosophical
chasm said to exist between the Blue States and the Red States (USA Today's
famous depiction of the breakdown between votes for Gore and Bush in 2000)
far exceeded the substantive policy differences between the candidates
themselves. Those who supported Bush were seen as wanting lower taxes,
a more restrained domestic role for the federal government, gun rights
and family values while the Gore supporters were for activist government
involved in income redistribution, gun control and more secular and cosmopolitan
values. No one thought much about the intentions of the millions who stayed
home.

If you can't bring yourself to vote for a Republican like Bush, why not
vote for a minor party candidate? No one would confuse a vote for Harry
Browne (himself long a devotee of political nonparticipation) and the
Libertarian Party or Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party with support
for government continuing to grow. These candidates will not win, but
the more votes they receive the more votes it is apparent are out there
that reject the current trajectory of government growth.

Certainly, it would be better if the Republican Party was more committed
to limited government and the conservative movement was focused on long-term
objectives rather than narrow goals such as winning each election. But
how does a refusal to vote at all give greater satisfaction than the knowledge
that you voted for a candidate acknowledged as a supporter of limited
government? One of the key factors in the growth of organizations like
the Republican Liberty Caucus is the votes GOP candidates are losing to
the Libertarian Party. The more such votes are out there, the more the
GOP will move in the direction of smaller government.

Perhaps a more convincing statement about the legitimacy of statism than
not voting could be made by refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws.
However, there is still a great deal of freedom to influence government
policy in this country. It seems that the most basic of them, voting,
should be exercised before civil disobedience.

Politics has its limits, but it is ultimately the forum for deciding
what government will and will not be involved in. Those who wish to limit
government would do better to work toward more effective efforts in the
political realm, rather than withdrawing entirely and allowing government
to continue to grow by default.